But yeah, increase the model line-up to include more small cars (ala Fit, which is quite quick), and more small CUV’s to take over the jobs of many un-needed SUV’s. Why get a Tahoe when you could get the Saturn Outlook? If you don’t tow much, but want some carrying space and a bit of ground clearance, get a vehicle that gets 17/24 instead of 15/21. It may not seem like much, but the thousands sold will make a big difference.

The current MPG regulations specify…I believe….20-23mpg (combined) So according to just about every single person that has posted above me, there are no cars that get less than 20mpg. That’s a fallacy and almost ALL of you are reading the regulations this way. The fact is, the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy which is what you guys are actually discussing) COULD EASILY exceed 40 or 50mpg. In fact, the industry seems to think 65-75mpg is about the limit with gasoline internal combustion engines….did you know the old 3cyl Metros and Honda Civic HXs could achieve nearly 65mpg? That’s nearly double the “impossible” new proposal of 40mpg AVERAGE. To attain this average, they would only need to make a few cars that got nearly 60mpg, a few that got 35-45, and upgrade their trucks to about 25-30. This would “even out” the distribution…the same way it is now, allowing for the 14mpg suvs and the “economy” 30mpg cars. By the way….the really low mpg SUVs generally exceed the CAFE weight limit and don’t have to meet the standards anyway. (escalade els, suburbans, excursions etc)

Government regulation shouldn’t be as motivating to manufacturers as the voice and actions of its customers.

That’s my libertarian two cents.

However… what about light and medium duty trucks that many people use for their work? And of course I am definitely going to ask how I can buy a 350 horsepower turbo sportscar that also gets 40mpg. Pretty obvious answer to that one as long as we’re talking about internal combustion engines.

A heavily revised version of the tiered fuel economy model for US vehicles would do much better, without completely leaving contractors and car enthusiasts out to dry. Also, how does this affect heavy commercial vehicles such as semis?

I am one of those folks who is interested in buying a 40MPG car…. as a daily driver. Even so, there is no way I am giving up having a high performance vehicle in my garage. On the other hand, I don’t feel the need to drive a 12mpg SUV as a commuter.

I actually think that electric cars will probably be the future. My argument is essentially based on the idea that solar power is becoming much more efficient and feasible, and it is pretty much 100% free and green energy. The ultimate question is really how can we be as energy efficient as possible, and internal combustion engines, whether they’re gas or diesel or whatever, are grossly inefficient. The amount of energy actually extracted from the fuel is pretty pitiful.

i.e. if you wanted to get 100% of the energy out of a gallon of gasoline, you’d need a gallon of anti-gasoline. you could then throw the two together and probably destroy the entire planet with the energy released from the ensuing reaction.

Of course, I realize that absolute energy efficiency is pretty lofty goal. Yet it disturbs me that we, as a technological society, are so very aware of the wastefulness around us, and yet consider it to be perfectly reasonable. With the internal combustion engine we’re basically burning fuel, and that’s not unlike the system devised by cavemen in order to keep warm. The difference is that fire was a fantastic leap for early man, whereas the internal combustion is just the ultimate evolution of that same idea.

Why can’t I have a house covered in solar panels and a plug that fills up my car with effectively boundless energy from the sun (which, incidentally, is the ultimate source of all energy on earth, anyway)? And I really don’t see why this car can’t be efficient enough to be fast. The fact is, this is nowhere near as impossible as so many people choose to believe it is.

People should check out this car: http://www.wrightspeed.com/

I’ll classify it as a work in progress, but I think it’s coming along quite nicely.

/no

As far as the 40 mpg study is concerned, I think the results would have been much different if they were also asked to give up size and power to make it happen. I do agree however that the auto industry should be continualy looking for ways to improve there mileage.

Oh and while you’re at take that oversized waste of metal you call SLUMMER and put a fork in it. The joke is old, we get it.

Take, for example, the Miata (even though it’s somewhat of a niche vehicle). When it came out, it was pretty much the only simple two-seater roadster on the market (the Corvette and the Viper, while great cars, do not count). BMW saw the success the Miata had, copied the formula and sold a ton of Z3s. Finally, after 15 or so years, GM introduces the Solstice. While Ford and Chrysler have made some relatively pitiful attempts with the Thunderbird and the Crossfire. Maybe not bad, but not really good, and way too overpriced.

/no

If the manufacturers manage to improve fuel economy without diminishing horsepower and size, that will help them sell more of those vehicles as the customer is in a win-win situation.

A). far less than 78% of the drivers i encounter on the road drive little, fuel efficiant econoboxes

B). far more then 78% of the drivers i encounter on the road try to “race” me to the next stop light in their QX45’s and H2’s with V8s and 30 kids in the 89 rows of seats, just wasting gas and time

a 40 mpg legislation would not be needed if people would just buy as much room as needed instead of enourmous SUVs (or SAV if you have a Bimmer) that have too much space. my wife had twins two weeks ago, and i realised it was time for a larger car, but did i buy a Suburban? NO. i bought an A4 2.0T, and it has plenty of room and relativly good milage. almost no one needs an SUV.

IM A FATHER!!!

DIESEL IS THE FUTURE! say waht you will but look at Europe…that us in 5…10…15…20years. get use to it

Furthermore, how can we have the audacity to applaud Ford for listening to consumers and adding a bit more plastic to the front fascia of the Edge, and then just shrug off a study such as this?

What absolutely sickens me the most about this whole debate is the idea realism. As far as I’m concerned it is the absolute foe of innovation. By focusing on realistic goals we’re essentially saying that we’re happy with the status quo, which 78% of Americans are apparently not. Putting men on the moon is a perfect example. For President Kennedy to declare the US’s intention to put a man on the moon within a decade was a pretty unrealistic goal. That being said, it was established as a goal, and lo and behold, it was accomplished. Even if it hadn’t been accomplished, the effort put into the program would have made a trip to the moon much more feasible at a much earlier date than if Kennedy had set a realistic target like 1995. If that was the case, we’d still never have done it. I believe the saying is something along the line of, “Shoot for the moon, and even if you miss, you’ll still end up among the stars.”

And for all those who are completely convinced that performance and economy are irreconcilable, I give you the Audi A8 4.2 TDI Quattro. It’ll do 0-62 in 5.9 and is capable of averaging 40mpg. It might not be a Corvette, but don’t sit there and say a high performance vehicle with good fuel economy is unrealistic. Or, at the very least, be honest and say it’s an unrealistic goal for an American manufacturer. Let’s see how long they last in free market.

/no